42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Variable Combinations of Specific Ephrin Ligand/Eph Receptor Pairs Control Embryonic Tissue Separation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Vertebrate embryonic cells recognize self from non-self, thus restricting repulsion at tissue boundaries, through a combination of multiple ephrins and Eph receptors, simply based on binding selectivity and asymmetric expression.

          Abstract

          Ephrins and Eph receptors are involved in the establishment of vertebrate tissue boundaries. The complexity of the system is puzzling, however in many instances, tissues express multiple ephrins and Ephs on both sides of the boundary, a situation that should in principle cause repulsion between cells within each tissue. Although co-expression of ephrins and Eph receptors is widespread in embryonic tissues, neurons, and cancer cells, it is still unresolved how the respective signals are integrated into a coherent output. We present a simple explanation for the confinement of repulsion to the tissue interface: Using the dorsal ectoderm–mesoderm boundary of the Xenopus embryo as a model, we identify selective functional interactions between ephrin–Eph pairs that are expressed in partial complementary patterns. The combined repulsive signals add up to be strongest across the boundary, where they reach sufficient intensity to trigger cell detachments. The process can be largely explained using a simple model based exclusively on relative ephrin and Eph concentrations and binding affinities. We generalize these findings for the ventral ectoderm–mesoderm boundary and the notochord boundary, both of which appear to function on the same principles. These results provide a paradigm for how developmental systems may integrate multiple cues to generate discrete local outcomes.

          Author Summary

          How embryonic tissues separate from each other to shape the developing organism is a fundamental question in developmental biology. In vertebrates, this process relies on local repulsive reactions specifically generated at contacts between cells of different types. These reactions are triggered by typical repulsive cell surface cues, the ephrin ligands, and Eph receptors. However, the expression of multiple ephrins and the Eph receptors by each cell type represents a puzzle: Why is repulsion observed only at the tissue interface and not within the tissue itself? By studying three cases of separation in the early amphibian embryo, we uncover a surprisingly simple logic underlying this phenomenon, which can be explained by the selectivity of ligand–receptor interactions and by their asymmetric distribution. The system is set such that, despite generalized interactions throughout the tissues, it is only at contacts between different cell types that the overall repulsive output is sufficiently strong to overcome cell–cell adhesion. Our study may serve as paradigm for how systematic dissection of complex cellular systems can reduce them to simple laws and make them intelligible.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EphB receptors interact with NMDA receptors and regulate excitatory synapse formation.

          EphB receptor tyrosine kinases are enriched at synapses, suggesting that these receptors play a role in synapse formation or function. We find that EphrinB binding to EphB induces a direct interaction of EphB with NMDA-type glutamate receptors. This interaction occurs at the cell surface and is mediated by the extracellular regions of the two receptors, but does not require the kinase activity of EphB. The kinase activity of EphB may be important for subsequent steps in synapse formation, as perturbation of EphB tyrosine kinase activity affects the number of synaptic specializations that form in cultured neurons. These findings indicate that EphrinB activation of EphB promotes an association of EphB with NMDA receptors that may be critical for synapse development or function.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Eph receptors and ligands comprise two major specificity subclasses and are reciprocally compartmentalized during embryogenesis.

            We report that the many Eph-related receptor tyrosine kinases, and their numerous membrane-bound ligands, can each be grouped into only two major specificity subclasses. Receptors in a given subclass bind most members of a corresponding ligand subclass. The physiological relevance of these groupings is suggested by viewing the collective distributions of all members of a subclass. These composite distributions, in contrast with less informative patterns seen with individual members of the family, reveal that the developing embryo is subdivided into domains defined by reciprocal and apparently mutually exclusive expression of a receptor subclass and its corresponding ligands. Receptors seem to encounter their ligands only at the interface between these domains. This reciprocal compartmentalization implicates the Eph family in the formation of spatial boundaries that may help to organize the developing body plan.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ephrin regulation of synapse formation, function and plasticity.

              Synapses enable the transmission of information within neural circuits and allow the brain to change in response to experience. During the last decade numerous proteins that can induce synapse formation have been identified. Many of these synaptic inducers rely on trans-synaptic cell-cell interactions to generate functional contacts. Moreover, evidence now suggests that the same proteins that function early in development to regulate synapse formation may help to maintain and/or regulate the function and plasticity of mature synapses. One set of receptors and ligands that appear to impact both the development and the mature function of synapses are Eph receptors (erythropoietin-producing human hepatocellular carcinoma cell line) and their surface associated ligands, ephrins (Eph family receptor interacting proteins). Ephs can initiate new synaptic contacts, recruit and stabilize glutamate receptors at nascent synapses and regulate dendritic spine morphology. Recent evidence demonstrates that ephrin ligands also play major roles at synapses. Activation of ephrins by Eph receptors can induce synapse formation and spine morphogenesis, whereas in the mature nervous system ephrin signaling modulates synaptic function and long-term changes in synaptic strength. In this review we will summarize the recent progress in understanding the role of ephrins in presynaptic and postsynaptic differentiation, and synapse development, function and plasticity. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Biol
                PLoS Biol
                plos
                plosbiol
                PLoS Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1544-9173
                1545-7885
                September 2014
                23 September 2014
                : 12
                : 9
                : e1001955
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [2 ]Complex Systems and Non Linear Phenomena, L2C–UMR 5221 CNRS–UM2, Montpellier, France
                [3 ]Biological Physics and Systems Biology, DIMNP–UMR 5235 CNRS–UM2 et 1, Montpellier, France
                [4 ]Department of Cell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                Osaka University, Japan
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                The author(s) have made the following declarations about their contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: NR RW FF. Performed the experiments: NR AP. Analyzed the data: NR AP RW FF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AP. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: NR AP RW FF.

                Article
                PBIOLOGY-D-14-00921
                10.1371/journal.pbio.1001955
                4172438
                25247423
                01cce049-fc6c-4ae5-bc3a-02848c9cbf17
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 March 2014
                : 15 August 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 20
                Funding
                The work was supported by the following grants: CCSRI ( www.cancer.ca/research), 017162/700915 and CIHR ( www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca), MOP-130350 to FF, and CIHR ( www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca), MOP-53075 to RW. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Cell Biology
                Developmental Biology
                Custom metadata
                The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Life sciences
                Life sciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article